As a result of the unoriginality of copycat82, it is not essential to read it, to learn anything. Any of the original (prior art) sources may suffice. Therefore, I only point at those publications, along with the mess of copycat82's camouflage.
copycat82 commits plagiarism, coated with (its camouflage of) fake claims (illusions), and faultfullness. Although copycat82 is only a merger (cut-and-paste) of a very few papers (of others), it still does not cite any of them as its source, where some reference is due. It is, in fact, even a subset of each of those single papers - if the worse than trivial camouflage, were omitted. When compared with each of them, either the suggested "extra" content is missing in copycat82 and/or the consequences were ignored.
The (attempted) coated-matter is so meager that, it is better termed a jerkin, which is patchy, and with a lot of self-contradictions, which scream, at the seams, when copycat82 attempts to merge any two of the source papers. Next, [almost] whenever copycat82 ever-so-trivially attempts to comment about something, it commits ignorance - if not extreme neglect, when the expressed statement could mean a variety of things, exactly in that same context.
Specifically, it is worse than trivial, because whenever it is not exactly trivial, it:
Macro E-nets existed since 1973. Da80 discusses E-nets, too. Very precisely, these are sufficient to map the formal structure, between E-nets, and copycat82. Whenever (if) there is (a claim of) the slightest difference, copycat82 is not functional. It is only an attempt at make-up, but fails.
An E-net is a seven-tuple in three-pieces: (E, M0, (xi, Psi)).
A convenience, in tracking plagiarism, is that, copycat82 turns out to be in the L, P, R, A order - interleaved, with the rest of E-nets, as plagiarized from Da80, or NN73. That is, we find the camouflage, as a jerkin, with which, it has been attempted to cover up the existence of E-nets. The exact fit to E-nets is strikingly noticeable, though. Features, and restrictions show through.
|L||A location may contain a token. At most, a single token, at a time.|
Plagiarized in section 3.2.1. as copycat82's jerkin to E-nets
|xi||A token, may have token-attributes with it, employed as a vector (record) with
attributes (fields). The xi, is similar, but global.|
Plagiarized in section 3.2.2. as copycat82's jerkin to E-nets
|P||Tokens arrive/exit through the peripheral locations.|
Plagiarized in section 3.2.3. (earlier part) as copycat82's jerkin to E-nets
|Psi||Each (peripheral) resolution location is associated with a resolution procedure.|
Plagiarized in section 3.2.3. (later part) as copycat82's jerkin to E-nets
|R||A resolution location is for a value, to resolve conflicts.(See Da80:IV.E,too) Plagiarized in section 3.2.4. as copycat82's jerkin to E-nets|
|E-nets formalism, and next, Da80 section "V. Global Model"|
Plagiarized in section 3.2.5. as copycat82's jerkin to E-nets
|A||An E-net transition is/represents activity. As soon as it is (fully)
enabled, it starts, i.e: there is no wait-before-firing time, separate from the
Plagiarized in section 3.2.6. as copycat82's jerkin to E-nets
Except the fake-claim of abstract-data-types (ADTs), anything and everything in copycat82 exactly corresponds to the E-nets formal structure - but with errors.
The case with an ADT is strange. If there is anything new, where is it discussed? If nothing is new, why bother mention it? As such, it is only one of the illusions (the absurd, fake claims), advertised in copycat82. It is an excess baggage, an unresolved duality.
Although copycat82 appears to claim (implicitly), the ability to verify its subnets separately, in fact, it is only true for VD78 subnets. Therefore, copycat82 is false, in its (implicit) claim of separately-verifiable subnets. Furthermore, in fact, even importing that feature from VD78 would have been trivial, too. It is pathetic that copycat82 does not refer to the subnet-restrictions, and the proof in VD78 (or, in Valette's PhD, in 1976). It appears, copycat82 did not want to transcribe (or cite) everything, and next, it was faulty, because it had discarded some essential points of the VD78 methodology.
Formally, copycat82 is E-nets. In figures, it imitates SARA. Next, when it is time to verify/test the model, copycat82 attempts to verify, as if it were VD78, with a simple loop/recursion. i.e: Attempts to verify, as if those were separate subnets, but without the necessities of isolation being observed, first.
i.e: When you ask: "Could copycat82 verify them separately?" the answer is "No." This entails, by contraposition, that VD78 is relevant/implied, because it is VD78 that lists the/a set of restrictions to make such a reduction correct, and publishes its proof.
Only expanding the entrance/exit macros certainly does not suffice. Mostly irrelevant - except when such input/output-macros themselves commit problems, within the container macros. That is no contribution beyond VD78, any way - as far as, a bottleneck has to be observed at entrance/exit. (To investigate about their triviality, expensiveness, and/or quirkiness/faultfullness, see, the pages 129, 130, 132, etc.)
In copycat82, there are no proofs whatsoever. That is strange, for a Ph.D. If it claims any contribution, we would expect some proofs of correct-operation for it, but copycat82 cannot provide any. In fact, I keep proving its faultiness, in a variety of ways - when the cut-and-paste monster, copycat82, leads to absurdity. This page specializes for yet another type of proof: I prove that copycat82 plagiarizes.
In summary, copycat82 only merges the Petri net extensions of two preceding research papers (NN73 and VD78), with a very little make-up (imitative of SARA (UCLA graphs), visually, and imitative of Da80 (again, E-nets), formally). The start-up may have been from the Peterson (1977) tutorial and/or Danthine's (1980), if not from something similar. But then, when even the merged and the make-up leads to obvious faults and unhandled consequences, even the basic advantages of the Petri nets can get lost.
It is patch by patch: An example may work, another may not. It depends on whether both (or, all) of the source papers would express it, the same way. If not, there is the self-contradiction in copycat82, because it is only a cut-and-pasted text. For example, if you need both a transition procedure (to modify resources), and a resolution procedure, you cannot present that node visually. (E-nets has both, SARA has a single node, where it does both jobs.)
In copycat82, except for Da80, the plagiarism is not one of totally not-mentioning the references. Three of the references (Peterson's, E-nets, and SARA) were quite well-known papers, anyway. In copycat82, they are cited as part of the literature overview, but next, they are "forgotten." Never again, at any relevant point, could you ever read, in copycat82, that some idea is actually re-published from somewhere else. You need to sort and reference, and the net result is that, nothing else is left - except some false claims, and a lot of errors in the examples. That is very unsuggestive of a Ph.D. work.
Unoriginal. So much so that, at times, we can even track its steps of plagiarism, when we compare the text-and-figures with the older papers. At times, even something which copycat82 publishes without any justification, and which would not make sense with the vague (ill-"generalized") names which copycat82 adopts, next may start to make sense when you notice the same pattern in the original paper and read the original explanation for it. i.e: copycat82 commits problems in translation, too. Such faux-pas, can be of use, when we investigate its plagiarism, step-by-step.
We can easily map a few elements between the E-nets and VD78 formalisms, but mostly they study different strategies. This means, they could contribute to each other, if a minimum of care is observed. But, at all such points, the copycat82 fails. It steadily makes the wrong choices. You could always correct them, yourself. But the result is trivially, then, either E-nets, or VD78.
You may read further about these, at the page about prior art. After reading it, copycat82 is obvious, not to have contributed anything. i.e: All the questions, and answers, it only republishes. As a proof, this page pinpoints the plagiarism, whereas that page suggests the non-contribution of copycat82, by contra-position: That is, given that literature, what is the claim of copycat82, beyond that? The answer is: nothing. This nullifies any claims of copycat82.
In presence of all those un-referenced material, if you would tell me it is "computer science basics" and need not be cited, I would ask you "What is left then? The content of those papers already cover this." A full-cover of the content by the preceding literature, with whatever explanation/excuse, would still be unoriginality, and need not be granted a Ph.D. And then the errors are extra extra. If that is computer science, how does that person even carry a B.S. degree in computer science?
When an E-net is visually presented, how it corresponds to its formal-presentation, is easily noticeable. No confusion with that. Then, it is kindergarten stuff to write those listings, within the figures (imitative of SARA), as copycat82 does. It is both trivial, and absurd to unbundle the token-attributes, as data-item boxes, and even further to suggest (although itself avoids), drawing "data-type" boxes, similarly. These all have their problems, without any new utility, in copycat82 - not to mention the graph clutter/crowdedness.
e.g: A token at a location, may have twelve attributes. NN73 renders it as a single point (location), and the process is obvious. It would be only clutter, if, as with copycat82, next to that single location, you draw twelve boxes on twelve paths, parallel to the token path - each of which point between the source and the destination. This is what it is, especially, because it is a message-based networked/distributed system. i.e: Adopting a representation as "memory cells" is a bit of, mismatch, especially when no such extra purpose, as VD78 prefers (the Keller/Karp paradigm) is employed, either. See article similarity semantics?!?
Although copycat82 claims to be "A method for the design ... and analysis of distributed software systems ...," it is even itself faultfull in its examples, and the presented "method" is fault-prone. The granting of a Ph.D. degree to such a work, is especially horrifying, both materially, and academically. The lethal and/or material disasters lurk behind. Think of an earthquake-emergency system, or maybe a nuclear reactor (with a few computers working for it), and/or an aeroplane Who can rely on some critical software if verified by that copycat82 method or person, and/or by those professors who granted such a Ph.D.?